G.R. No. 246231 , October 9, 2023
ALLAN DE VERA Y ANTE, PETITIONER, VS. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

FACTS

Petitioner Allan De Vera was charged with committing lascivious conduct under Republic Act No. 7610 (the Special Protection of Children Against Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act). The Information alleged that on July 7, 2012, in Quezon City, he willfully committed acts of lasciviousness upon a 16-year-old minor, AAA, by fondling his penis and masturbating beside her while she was taking an examination at a university library. The Regional Trial Court convicted De Vera of sexual abuse under Section 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610 , giving full credence to AAA’s positive and candid testimony and noting psychiatric findings that she suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder due to the incident.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals modified the conviction. It held that the prosecution failed to prove the element of coercion for sexual abuse under Section 5(b). Instead, it found De Vera guilty of “other acts of child abuse” under Section 10(a) of the same law, ruling that his act of masturbating in the presence of the minor constituted psychological abuse that was debasing and prejudicial to her development. The Supreme Court initially affirmed this ruling with modifications to the damages awarded. However, upon De Vera’s Motion for Reconsideration, the ponencia reversed, acquitting him on grounds of insufficient evidence and witness credibility issues.

ISSUE

Whether the ponencia erred in acquitting the petitioner by overturning the consistent factual findings and credibility assessments of the lower courts regarding the commission of the act and the resulting psychological harm to the minor victim.

RULING

Justice Leonen, in his dissenting opinion, argues that the acquittal is a reversible error. He emphasizes the long-settled doctrine that the trial court’s assessment of witness credibility is accorded the highest respect and is generally binding on appellate courts, as the trial judge has the unique opportunity to observe the witness’s demeanor. Both the RTC and the CA meticulously found AAA’s testimony to be clear, straightforward, unwavering, and credible, with no ill-motive to falsely accuse. The dissent criticizes the ponencia for re-evaluating these factual findings based on perceived minor inconsistencies (such as the use of “kaluskos” in a police statement versus “tapping sound” in court testimony), which do not relate to the core fact of witnessing the lascivious act.
Regarding the nature of the offense, the dissent maintains that the act of masturbating in front of a child is intrinsically debasing, degrading, and demeaning, constituting psychological abuse under Section 10(a) of R.A. No. 7610 . The law is designed to protect children from all forms of abuse, and such a lewd act, by its very nature, is prejudicial to the child’s development. The dissent argues that the psychiatric finding of PTSD substantiates the serious psychological harm, and the specific intent to debase can be inferred from the deliberate commission of the act itself. By requiring direct proof of such intent and re-calibrating the evidence, the ponencia, according to the dissent, imposes an unreasonable burden on the prosecution not contemplated by the child protection law and unjustly sets aside the unanimous conclusions of the lower courts.